Roman’s ruthlessness a necessary evil for Chelsea – even if John Terry has to go
Even John Terry’s most fervid supporters would acknowledge that the Chelsea captain’s decision to make his contract situation public earlier this month had an element of cunning realpolitik about it – an awareness of the impact it would have on the Blues faithful, and by extension, the club’s board and its owner Roman Abramovich. This sort of Machiavellian ploy from the legendary captain is precisely at least part of the reason Chelsea have not extended the contract of one of their greatest-ever servants. It remains to be seen whether Terry gets his wish to stay at the club beyond this summer, but even if he does, it will be despite his comments in the media rather than because of them.
For, Roman Abramovich is not a man to be trifled with. Chelsea’s billionaire owner is clearly a shrewd businessman, but has also made his mark in the world of politics, successfully governing the province of Chukotka from 2000 to 2008. The Russian is far better versed in high-stakes political conflict than Terry can ever hope to be, and even if the Englishman has the club’s global army of supporters behind him, there is only ever going to be one winner in this battle. Hint: it won’t be Terry.
Chelsea’s technical director Michael Emenalo has recently received a lot of criticism from the club’s fans, and although some of it may be valid, the Nigerian is increasingly becoming a scapegoat for the club’s problems – including the refusal to renew Terry’s contract. Emenalo might be an important figure at Stamford Bridge, but he certainly does not wield enough influence to unilaterally make such a huge decision. Only one man at the club has that sort of power. The Blues faithful will have to come to terms with the fact that it is Abramovich who is behind this decision, and it was also most likely the Russian who decided to call time on Frank Lampard’s Chelsea career in 2014.
Lampard’s time at SW6 could possibly have been even shorter, had it not been for the midfielder’s purple patch in the second half of the 2012-2013 season that helped Chelsea finish third in the league, and that saw him break Bobby Tambling’s all-time goals record for the club. Similarly, Terry’s outstanding consistency and form in the 2014-2015 season was crucial in Jose Mourinho’s third Premier League title with the London club, and not extending his contract was simply not an option at the time. However, as seems increasingly obvious now – confirmed by Duncan Castles, who is known to have good Chelsea sources – the club decided very early in this season to make the final step of the transition from the old guard to the new this summer.
There is certainly merit in the argument that Terry should stay for the simple reason that he remains the club’s best centre-half, or that his leadership could prove to be vital in what will be a liminal 2016-17 season for Chelsea. However, not renewing his contract may not be as egregious an error in judgement as to be dismissed without serious thought.
Terry is clearly not the defender he was last season, having been culpable for several entirely preventable goals Chelsea have shipped in 2015/16, and the 35-year-old’s lack of pace could prove to be a real obstacle if the new manager opts for the sort of expansive system that Abramovich would so dearly love to see. Andre Villas-Boas encountered a similar problem, but the Portuguese did not have the political clout to survive serious opposition from senior players, eventually being sacked a few months into his job. Nevertheless, the incident reportedly left Chelsea’s billionaire owner fuming, and it is easy to see why he might not want a repeat of that situation.
Additionally, Terry’s influence in the dressing room, something that several players have spoken about as being extremely helpful and positive, is ironically what Abramovich sees as the problem. Indeed, it would do the club no service to have their new manager constantly harangued by media questions if Terry is left out or included, depending on the result and his performance in major games. Brendan Rodgers had to deal with a similar scenario during Steven Gerrard’s last few months at Anfield, and perhaps Chelsea have taken heed of that and are looking to avoid a similar situation.
Abramovich would look to give the new manager a fresh start – an opportunity to shape the squad as he sees fit without significant resistance from his players, particularly those hugely influential in the dressing room and among supporters. Terry’s departure might create a leadership vacuum, but perhaps someone within the current squad will see that as an opportunity rather than a challenge, step up their game and shoulder the additional responsibility.
Finally, Terry’s exit may provide the impetus for Chelsea to fully commit to bringing a world-class centre-back or a potentially world-class talent to the club in the summer, while also making it that much easier for talented young defenders on the club’s books – like Andreas Christensen – to get closer to first-team football.
All this is not to say that Terry has to go or even that it will be a good decision to release him, but the Blues supporters must try and appreciate the club’s (and Abramovich’s) point of view. More fundamentally, to vilify the club and Abramovich for their decision is to look at a significantly cropped version of a much larger picture. No individual – not even John Terry – is bigger than the club, and Chelsea fans are fortunate in many ways to have an owner so deeply invested, financially and emotionally, in the team’s success on the pitch.
The Blues supporters must ask themselves this question: would they rather have owners who siphon millions out of the club to service a debt, owners whose primary interest seems to be an American baseball team, or indeed owners so apathetic to the club’s footballing success that a perennial fourth-place finish is acceptable as long as revenue is generated and the club is profitable?
Abramovich’s capricious nature has led to mistakes the club has made, but even those decisions have all been taken because of the Russian’s burning desire to take the club to the very top of world football. There have also been important successful ones: the owner’s ruthlessness in replacing Claudio Ranieri with Jose Mourinho in 2004 set the club up for a decade of success, while the club’s aggressive sell-to-buy policy played a key role in the 2014-15 title win that followed one of the lowest net-spends in his time at the club.
His financial commitment in redeveloping Stamford Bridge to a 60,000-seater and the tens of millions invested in the club’s state-of-the-art youth academy are indication enough that the billionaire is keen to secure the club’s future. Quite simply, it would not be possible for Chelsea to take on such projects, or even be in a situation where they are a consideration, were it not for Roman’s largesse. Even the Chelsea Ladies’ team have not been neglected, signing talented players who played a part in the side’s League and Cup double in 2015.
The summer of 2016 will, by far, be the club’s most important off-season period since Roman Abramovich took over the reins in 2003, and whatever else they do in terms of the playing squad and appointing a manager, the club has to make sure they handle the Terry situation with class. Abramovich is not given to overt displays of sentimentality, but if the club do let their captain leave, the Russian must do everything in his power to make sure he receives a dignified, memorable send-off.
Abramovich may have differences in opinion with Chelsea fans, but they undoubtedly share a common vision for the club. Roman’s ruthlessness is a necessary evil and should, in some ways, be a source of comfort for Blues supporters worldwide rather than a source of consternation. Ultimately, they can sleep peacefully at night safe in the knowledge that he wants to see what they – and indeed, John Terry – also want to see: success on the pitch for Chelsea.
